"Socialist, Foreign-Born, America-Destroying" President Asks to Tone Down the Rhetoric

Wonder how long it would take him to visits all 57 states in that Canadian bus?

You mean the same "Canadian bus" that the GOP nominee will travel in?

Did Bain Capital acquire two American auto companies while I stepped out for coffee?

While I appreciate the subtle insinuation that Romney will be the nominee, no, that's not what I meant.

Once the GOP nominee is named (or perhaps even before that) and they are assigned a Secret Service protective detail, they'll be compelled to ride around in a bus identical to the one the president is currently traveling in.

No, Rev probably means the same buses built by Prevost that both Palin and Bachmann are riding around in right now. Which is the same company that built the buses for the straight talk express. Also the same company that built both John Kerry and George W Bush's buses.

Not to mention the fact that the Secret Service buses were retrofitted by a company in Tennessee.

Facts rarely get in the way of a snarky, petulant right-wing talking point.

Rewarding economic failure, the legacy of Bernanke:

http://cunningrealist.blogspot...

The Cunning Linguist has a blog now?

It's all about "Cunning Stunts"

Dirty dirty dirty. Don't you know that kids read this blog? Liberal.

Look, they worked really really hard on that blog so please don't be a hater. Besides, Darren really liked it.

And I think we may as well just close comments at this point on this thread - you've just won Chicagoist for the day. 

Bravo.

You guys forgot to mention that he's a Muslim.

I'm just going to start "liking" the comments that make Navin either a) look like an idiot or b) demonstrate that he's no different than right-wing extremists.

In short, if mental midgets like Rick Perry and Navin both hate something, there's probably nothing really wrong with it.

right-wing extremists

lol.  Nearly everyone apart from Obama has been critical of Bernanke's handling of The Fed.  Fail again Slap.

WSJ survey:  Most economists basically think Bernanke was full of shit:

http://online.wsj.com/article/...

Yeah, what's not to like about the fed boss being a right wing ideologue?  What's wrong with the fed and the treasury extracting billions of American citizen's wealth and giving it to their private banking Wall St. friends with no strings attached?  This is the guy who told everyone not to worry about the housing bubble.  This is the guy who pushed for the government to take over all of private businesses toxic assets, while screeching about how we must slash and burn Medicare and Social Security.  This is the guy who promoted the same loose money policies that brought about the crash.  Same guy who preached that markets (and subprime, toxic assets) were sound up until the crash. 

But ole' Slappy.  He's got nothing to bring to the table with his opening gambit but personal attacks, hypocritical, extreme partisanship, and logical fallacies:

In short, if mental midgets like Rick Perry and Navin both hate something, there's probably nothing really wrong with it

Could it possibly be that our reasons for disliking him are totally different? Neoliberal morons like Perry and Paultards don't think there should be any kind of central banking and that we should be tied to gold. Progressives just want to root out the corruption, and Bernanke is certainly corrupt, as is Geithner, and Obama.

::IDIOT, indeed.  Or maybe old Slappy the yachtsman is just a wormy delusional trader, which is why he feels such slavish loyalty to corrupt scum. So there's a personal attack for you slap, seeing as you always set the table for these discussions.

Traitor?  Hmmm...maybe not far off... dirty rat, weasel, crook?  Definitely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

The point isn't that each side has contributed it's share of vitriol, but rather that talking loftily about how everyone needs to stop doesn't help. Obama would help the cause of civility by politely, but publicly, rebuking people on his own side of the political divide than by more "above the fray" posturing. Sometimes you have to give a little to get a little.

Of course, that presumes the renewed call for civility isn't itself a political ploy -- a presumption fewer and fewer among the opposition are willing to grant.

This is quality silliness right here. We'd stop saying utterly baseless (death panels!), demonstrably false (he's a Kenyan Muslim) if he'd tell Democrats to play nice. The right wing has no interest in civility and would not change no matter what Obama or Democrats, or Progressives, or whatever your ever-moving target group is do.

The right wing has no interest in civility and would not change no
matter what Obama or Democrats, or Progressives, or whatever your
ever-moving target group is do.

It's nice to see you're keeping an open mind, ChicagoD.

Sometimes experience overcomes hope.

Mmmhmm. The typically cowardly "B-b-b-b-b-b-but BOTH sides are to blame! No, really, you guys are just as bad!" bullshit. On the day after the current GOP primary poll leader accused the Fed Chairman of treason.

Rich. ::rolls eyes::

You've missed my point, Rev. It is irrelevant which side is worse, recently or otherwise. The well is poisoned. The only way to reverse that is to make visible, credible attempts to purify it, in whatever manner comes most readily to hand.

In this case, that means each side must ultimately take its own to task for civility transgressions. Anything else becomes a "no, you're worse!" shouting match. The fastest, most effective way for Obama (or anyone else in power, really) to show that he wants a more civil political conversation is to insist upon it from the people most willing to follow to him -- to lead by example. Then, either the opposition will shape up or it won't, and those in the general public will be able to see that for themselves.

If the goal is "a more civil political conversation", I'm disinclined to believe that the most effective way to go about achieving it is to scold the people who aren't the most responsible for it being uncivil. But that's just me.

Additionally, if your point is that "if your side cleans itself up, the other side will either follow suit or be publicly shamed", then I'd point out that -- again -- the president's side of this equation already is largely cleaned up. By comparison, it certainly is far, far more civil. And the right, having not reciprocated, is paying dearly for it in polling numbers.

So I didn't miss your point. My point is about where things already stand which is at least one or two logical steps past whatever it is you're talking about.

if your point is that "if your side cleans itself up, the other side
will either follow suit or be publicly shamed", then I'd point out that
-- again -- the president's side of this equation already is largely cleaned up

Assuming for the sake of argument that's true, you would still acknowledge that conservative don't believe it, yes? That they perceive themselves to be the targets of smears by the president's side? (And if not, you really ought to browse a few right-wing blogs, because they do.)

So. Worst-case scenario is the one above: both sides are at fault. If so, the best option is to take the high road, and control the incivility you can -- that of you and yours. Best case scenario, your side is controlled, and it's a problem of perception which will be ultimately be decided by independent voters. In that case, taking the high road as I've outlined above is still the correct choice, because no group can be guaranteed to stay within bounds 100% of the time, and it costs little to corral the strays. Even if you can never convince crazy, actions go a long way toward convincing everyone else.

I can't help how the extremists and dimwits of the right fringe "feel". What I can do, however, is point out a stone-simple, unavoidable, and objective reality: On the left, there is no phenomenon even remotely comparable to the right's -- successful! -- attempt to convince vast swaths of voters that the President of the United States isn't even a citizen. There's just not -- the Tea Party's poow weettle feewings and self-victimization notwithstanding.

So again, you can try the hollow little false equivalence argument if you want. But to any honest observer, it's just ridiculous.

... it's a problem of perception which will be ultimately be decided by independent voters...

... because, of course, liberals are paragons of civility, right? Really? How many times did we see protestors comparing George Bush to Hitler? Or Scott Walker to Hitler?

And, yes, Biden compared the Tea Party to terrorists.

Right. The fact that some morons decided to be morons is exactly the same as a nation-wide, orchestrated, years-long, highly-funded, carefully-coordinated, mass media-backed, systematic effort to completely de-legitimize the president on the basis of his being "un-American" -- to the point that a sizable percentage of Republican voters think he isn't even a citizen. Mmmhmm. ::rolls eyes::

And, yes, Biden compared the Tea Party to terrorists.

But that's one of the hallmarks of an extremist movement: Never let facts get in the way of a chance to play the victim -- or in the way of anything else for that matter.

See today's article: "The Biden 'terrorist' story: How It Came Together"
http://www.politico.com/news/s...  ... and then reconsider your remarks above.

Also, I love how legitimate dissent from the Right is characterized as being some kind of grand conspiracy perpetrated by a cadre of super-rich puppet masters, but dissent from the Left is always and everywhere the result of a popular, "grass roots" uprising.  Did you get that from "Rules For Radicals" or did you make that tactic up yourself?

See today's article: "The Biden 'terrorist' story: How It Came Together" 
http://www.politico.com/news/s...  ... and then reconsider your remarks above.

Also, I love how legitimate dissent from the Right is characterized as being some kind of grand conspiracy perpetrated by a cadre of super-rich puppet masters, but dissent from the Left is always and everywhere the result of a popular, "grass roots" uprising.

Did you get that from "Rules For Radicals" or did you make that tactic up yourself?